In which she blathers on about ancient Troy
I saw The Trojan Women last night. The director's note (and much of the promotion) focused on its role as an anti-war play, which of course was true, both script-wise and stage-wise, but not how I read it. I read it very much as a commentary on what it means to be a woman. Particularly, how much it sucks to be a woman. In a different world, granted, but I kept trying to imagine how the scenarios enacted in front of me would have played out in modern times (urged on, I'm sure, but the director's note, which emphasized the timelessness of the situations) and what the various women actually thought of each other as fellow humans rather than in their relation to the men of their world. For example, I didn't think Hecuba liked her daughter-in-law particularly much and obviously, was even less enamored of Helen. (This, by the way was my favorite scene, likely because of the combined acting chops and chemistry of actors lillibet, ladrescher, and Doug, whom I don't think is on Livejournal (is anyone these days?) but also because it felt more modern. It's fairly impressive actually that I liked it so well, given that I usually have trouble suspending disbelief when I know (and have worked with) the people on the stage in front of me.)
But I digress. Back to the play itself.
There were two other things that struck me about the show, though, one in passing, the other more lastingly. First, I thought that as much as it was an anti-war play, it made a decent argument for war as a great equalizer. One in terms of the war itself--a hero can be reduced to nothing and a peon raised high--but most explicitly in terms of class issues. The line that sparked this was one of Hecuba's--a rant/discovery about going from queen to slave. It felt to me that this had only now occurred to her, this shaking of her world view, namely the class system and was perhaps the first time she had considered the plights of those less fortunate than her. But as I said, it was a passing thought. More lastingly, I wondered how the play would have changed if the Trojans and Greeks had been cast with different skin tones. I am not myself a scholar of this era, but I do think it would have been a different (perhaps more powerful) play had the socioeconomic and ethnic dichotomies been more prominent and/or explicit.
This is, I suppose, an odd foray back into Livejournal, but there you have it. Unedited brain dump that springs from a rare foray into the world of grown-up arts & culture. Don't worry. It probably won't happen again any time soon.
But I digress. Back to the play itself.
There were two other things that struck me about the show, though, one in passing, the other more lastingly. First, I thought that as much as it was an anti-war play, it made a decent argument for war as a great equalizer. One in terms of the war itself--a hero can be reduced to nothing and a peon raised high--but most explicitly in terms of class issues. The line that sparked this was one of Hecuba's--a rant/discovery about going from queen to slave. It felt to me that this had only now occurred to her, this shaking of her world view, namely the class system and was perhaps the first time she had considered the plights of those less fortunate than her. But as I said, it was a passing thought. More lastingly, I wondered how the play would have changed if the Trojans and Greeks had been cast with different skin tones. I am not myself a scholar of this era, but I do think it would have been a different (perhaps more powerful) play had the socioeconomic and ethnic dichotomies been more prominent and/or explicit.
This is, I suppose, an odd foray back into Livejournal, but there you have it. Unedited brain dump that springs from a rare foray into the world of grown-up arts & culture. Don't worry. It probably won't happen again any time soon.